Probation Review Guidebook - RFK Children’s Action Corps · A probation review is an exciting...

March 2011Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps

Probation ReviewGuidebook

© Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps March 2011

Prepared by:

Janet K. Wiig and John A. Tuell Co-Directors, Models for Change Initiative Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps

The authors would like to acknowledge members of the Jefferson Parish Probation Management Team whose work contributed so much to the Jefferson Parish Probation Review and the creation of this guidebook. Those members, from Jefferson Parish Juvenile Services, are:

Roy L. Juncker, Jr., Director Christopher J. Trosclair, Assistant Director John S. Ryals, Jr., Evaluation/Treatment Manager Steve Cabal, Probation Manager Matthew J. Villio, Models for Change Coordinator

The preparation of this document was supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation through its Models for Change initiative. Anyone may use the content of this publication, unchanged and in the whole, for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial. For such use, you must identify the material with credit to the Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps by reprinting the copyright notice below.

Models for ChangeModels for Change is an effort to create successful and replicable models of juvenile justice reform through targeted investments in key states, with core support from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Models for Change seeks to accelerate progress toward a more effective, fair, and developmentally sound juvenile justice system that holds young people accountable for their actions, provides for their rehabilitation, protects them from harm, increases their life chances, and manages the risk they pose to themselves and to the public. The initiative is underway in Illinois, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Washington and, through action networks focusing on key issues, in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin.

Probation Review Guidebook4

5

Why Undertake a Probation Review?Probation departments, like a number of other longstanding agencies, function within a framework of statutes, policies and practices that were built up over the course of many years. Typically, there has been little time or effort to reflect on that framework to determine how well it is working and whether it functions in a manner that is optimal. Further, a culture of doing things “the way we’ve always done them” often permeates daily operations despite changes that may be designed to improve practices.

A probation review is an exciting opportunity for the principals involved in the management and day-to-day operation of a probation department to assess how they are doing in relation to their goals and objectives. It is an opportunity to enhance practice by making sure that policies and procedures, corresponding training, departmental management, and supervision of probationers are all lined up to reflect best practices.

The auspices for undertaking a review can be internal or external. In the case of the Los Angeles work, the local governing body, the Board of Supervisors, ordered a program audit of the probation department. In Jefferson Parish, it was the department director himself who requested the review. This request set the stage for an internal self study as opposed to an external review or audit. The character of the review and the commitment to its concomitant recommendations is enhanced by its internal auspices or when it is the department itself that initiates the review. This is not to say that there is


Background

The genesis for this guidebook was the probation review work undertaken in Jefferson Parish, LA as part of the work in the four core states associated with Models for Change: Systems Reform in Juvenile Justice and in Los Angeles County, CA under a Child Welfare League of America contract with the Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller’s Office. In both of those jurisdictions, over a period of several months, there was a review of programs and operations to support the goals of the probation departments, culminating in reports of findings and recommendations for improvements to the respective departments. A carefully tailored work plan was used to direct the reviews in each instance but the core elements of the plan were essentially the same and included:

A. Program Planning and Implementation

B. Best Practices and Benchmarking

C. Performance Measurement and Client Outcomes

D. Intra- and Interagency Work Processes2

As the review work progressed in Jefferson Parish, the Models for Change lead entity for Louisiana, the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, School of Public Health, and the MacArthur Foundation endorsed the development of a guidebook to assist other jurisdictions that were considering whether to undertake a probation review. They asked the principals who conducted the reviews in Jefferson Parish and Los Angeles County, Janet Wiig and John Tuell, to prepare this guidebook for that purpose.

1. The material in this guidebook is drawn heavily from the Jefferson Parish Probation Review Report (May 2010) including excerpts of language used to describe the process for the conduct of the review.

2. It should be noted that a court review was undertaken in the Newton County Juvenile Court, Georgia using the approach described in this probation review guidebook and carried out through a contract funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). The elements of the court review were slightly different as follows: Element A. Court Operations and Practice; Element B. Collect and Aggregate Performance Measures and Data; Element C. Practices and Intervention Strategies on School-Based Referrals; and Element D. Interagency Approaches for Multisystem Youth. Just as in Jefferson Parish probation, a report of the review’s findings and recommendations was prepared and presented to the leadership in Newton County Juvenile Court. The report is being used to implement recommendations for the improved handling and improved outcomes for youth who appear before the Court.


development of the work plan with the outside consultants and helped to carry out each of its activities and assure that both the internal and external personnel were available to participate in the various activities that constituted the review. The team also reviewed the preliminary findings, provided additional feedback to supplement the findings, and reviewed the draft of the final report of the findings and recommendations.

It is important to have a good balance of departmental personnel, outside agency personnel, and the consumers of the department’s services involved in the review activities. In Jefferson Parish, all of the department’s personnel participated in multiple activities involved in the review. Juvenile court judges, advocates, juveniles, parents, and several county and provider agencies also participated in the review, sharing their experiences regarding the probation department’s performance. The specifics of each group’s participation will be described further in this guidebook’s section on methodologies.

Design and Work PlanThe design of the review may best be accomplished in discussions with the probation leadership regarding the most critical issues that confront a department. A review may also be prompted by concerns that have been raised in the broader community about a department’s functioning or the handling of a particular high-profile case. Whatever the impetus, it is important that time be taken to “brainstorm the issues” and determine the priorities for review. Consideration should be given to the amount of time a jurisdiction has to undertake a review and what personnel resources will be available to organize and lead the review.

no value in undertaking a review that is externally generated, but the character of the departmental participation in and the management of the review is potentially richer when the review is internally generated.

Participation–Getting the Right Players at the TableThe probation review must be organized and carried out by specifically designated individuals whether they are outside consultants as in the case of both the Jefferson Parish3 and the Los Angeles County reviews or individuals from within the jurisdiction of the review. For example, a probation department could designate one of its own employees with solid organizational, management, and analytical skills to develop and manage a work plan for the review or it could call on another organization within its jurisdiction that has personnel with a capacity to conduct organizational development activities. Whoever performs this function, it is critical that the person(s) be given both the time and the authority to keep the work plan and participants moving.

The probation review team in Jefferson Parish provides an excellent example of the leadership necessary to carry out a probation review. The team was made of up of the department director, assistant director, probation manager, treatment coordinator, Models for Change coordinator, and the front-line supervisors. The enduring presence of the department’s director was critical since he requested the review in the first instance and made clear to the whole department that the review was an important priority for their time and attention. The internal probation review team was involved in the

3. The Jefferson Parish Probation Review was carried out by two principal consultants from the MacArthur Foundation National Resource Bank, John Tuell and Janet Wiig (from Child Welfare League of America [CWLA] at the time of the review and now with Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps), aided by four other Resource Bank member consultants: Shauna Epps from the Center for Children’s Law and Policy, Ned Loughran from the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators, Gina Vincent from the Na-tional Youth Screening and Assessment Project, and Sorrel Concodora from CWLA at the time of the review and now with Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps.

7

• What performance measures exist presently for the completion of specific case processes (e.g. meetings with probationers, timely completion of reports)?

• What measures exist for the achievement of successful client outcomes?

• What measures exist for the case assignment and caseload standards?

• Has the Department clearly articulated a set of client outcomes?

• Do client outcomes drive probation practice?

• Do probation officers know what outcomes they are seeking in their work with probationers?

• How are client outcomes identified in the individual case? intermediate and long-term outcomes?

Upon articulation of the questions, the work plan identified the methods by which these questions would be explored and examined. The example that follows is also from the Jefferson Parish review:

Method C.1 Identify Performance Measures, Focused Worker Performance, and Case Processes

The project team will review documents (forms, reports, studies) and it will interview personnel regarding the existence of performance measures. Building on that data, it will draw from national resources and work with the department to further develop performance measures and a system for tracking them.

Method C.2 Develop Client Outcomes and Measurement

The project team will conduct a review of the literature on client outcomes for juvenile probationers including the research that is available on incremental improvements or intermediate outcomes. It will work with senior personnel and line probation

Once the issues have been determined, a statement of work should be developed that:

• describes the jurisdiction in which the review is to occur,

• indicates the impetus for the review,

• describes the project scope (including the timeframe for completion and the resources to be used in the review),

• identifies the goals, and

• outlines the issues and sets them into a framework of elements.

As stated earlier, in both Jefferson Parish and Los Angeles County, the issues for review were organized into four elements:

A. Program Planning and Implementation

B. Best Practices and Benchmarking

C. Performance Measurement and Client Outcomes

D. Intra- and Interagency Work Processes

Within each of the elements, the statement of work should describe the importance of the particular element to the jurisdiction, the questions that are to be answered and the methods that are to be used. For example, in Jefferson Parish, under the element C., Performance Measurement and Client Outcomes, it was recognized that Jefferson Parish had previously addressed performance measurement through implementation of a revised performance-based contracting process. This reform provided for the individual monitoring of achievement of outcomes by the contractor in collaboration with the Jefferson Parish Department of Juvenile Services. The focus of this element for the probation review, however, was worker performance, the completion of particular case processes, and setting and measuring client outcomes.

The description of this element also stated the questions that were to be answered and the methods that would be used to complete the review of performance measurement and client outcomes:


practice forms for a review of the mission, vision, strategies, policies, and procedures of the probation department. It is important to direct significant attention to an analysis of the probation officer’s manual since this should be one of the best source documents to guide the probation work on a day-to-day basis. A review of this document should focus on its strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement. The focus on all documents should be an exercise to determine how well the documents mirror the actual practice and the identified best practices for probation services.

Key Stakeholder Interviews

Interviews with key stakeholders should be held early in the review process to not only examine the issues identified in the elements of the review process, but also to identify additional issues and areas that are considered important by people outside of the probation department. These key stakeholders, personnel from outside of the department, should be identified in concert with the probation review team. This identification process provides a finding in and of itself in that it shows who the department’s leadership believes is important to the examination and functioning of the department as that was the instruction provided to the leadership to identify the key stakeholders. It may also be important to get a perspective from individuals outside the department as to who should constitute the key stakeholder group to provide an additional element of objectivity to this particular activity.

Typical of individuals who would be considered key stakeholders are representatives of the related public entities such as judges, police, children’s services, court administration, mental health, substance abuse, prosecutor, defense counsel, and schools. Another important group of key stakeholders are the private providers, the agency directors, therapists, and others who interface regularly with the probation department.

A questionnaire should be used to conduct the interviews. This permits the inquiry to be consistently directed to the critical issues identified in the review elements and to ensure

officers to develop a listing of desired client outcomes and measures, establish baseline data, and identify data sources for tracking them. It will also help develop a methodology for identification and achievement of individual case outcomes by matching outcome measures to specific units of service internal and external to the department.

Finally, the work plan should be developed with specificity to effectively guide the work over the course of the review. The work plan should define a timed schedule, indicate who is to be involved in each of the activities, and identify any anticipated products. The actual work plan document will include each of the elements and their corresponding methods; a calendar to indicate the start and completion of each element; persons involved; and a section for comments to give additional guidance, note existing documents, and specify particular actions. The Jefferson Parish work plan provides an illustration in Appendix A.

MethodologyA critical part of the methodology is the decision as to what activities will be used to answer the review’s questions and ultimately develop recommendations for any needed improvements to the probation department’s policies and practice. This should be accomplished by the individuals charged with organizing and carrying out the review along with the leadership or probation review team. Careful consideration of the activities by these persons not only assures access to the people or documents needed for the particular activities, but also encourages ideas about the best way to conduct the review. Following are methods that can be used to examine the four elements of the review that constituted the Jefferson Parish probation review.

Document Review

The probation review team can collect the various statistical reports, program descriptions and reports, and probation

9

in concert with the probation review team. The participants in the survey are not identified with their responses and the open-ended questions should be reported in summary manner with care to not include anything that would identify the survey respondent.

Process Mapping

A Process mapping exercise with a select group of probation officers is a good way to analyze interfaces, handoffs, bottlenecks, and other case flow issues in the handling of cases internally in a department. This should include a discussion of what information is available at various decision making points. Process mapping can also be conducted with a group of supervisors and line probation staff to identify critical issues with interagency work processes. These mapping processes can supplement meetings of outside agencies with the probation review team to gain the agencies’ perspectives on interagency work processes.

Meetings with Department Director and Assistant Director

Whether the probation review is conducted using outside consultants or individuals within the department charged with organizing and carrying out all the review activities, it is important for those individuals to meet regularly with the probation department director and assistant director. These meetings should include discussion on the progress of the probation review, the directors’ expectations of the review, and their suggestions for addressing many of the findings as the probation review progresses. This provides the opportunity for any needed remedial actions on the part of management without waiting for the probation review report to be completed. The draft report should be presented to the director for input prior to its final publication.

Probation Review Team Meetings

The probation review team should meet to discuss and plan for any on-site visits that are to be made to carry out review

consistency in the information that it is gathered. Appendix B contains a list of questions to interview key stakeholders.

Employee Survey

The use of an employee survey presents a wonderful opportunity to get input from the probation staff that conducts the day-to-day activities of the probation department. While there are other structured activities to elicit this group’s analysis and recommendations which are discussed in methods following, an employee survey allows for the examination of many different areas of current practice and the anonymous report of opinions, concerns, ideas, and recommendations.

Minimally, it is recommended that an electronic survey of employees include probation officers and their supervisors. The survey can be comprised of closed-ended questions, asking respondents to agree or disagree with statements, followed by open-ended questions. The scale for responding to the closed-ended questions can include a range of responses such as: strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, and do not know. Appendix C is the employee survey that was used in Jefferson Parish. The 76 closed-ended questions were organized with the following categories:

• Pre-disposition investigations

• Case supervision

• Departmental Management and Supervision

• Resources and Service Delivery

• Best Practices

• Client Outcomes

• Inter-agency Relationships

The open-ended questions (Appendix D) called for the respondents to identify particular areas that could be improved. These areas included delivery of services to probationers, operations of the department, and the work experience of the probation officers. All of the survey questions were developed


Focus Groups

The conduct of focus groups is a useful method for obtaining the input of the consumers of probation services, parents and juveniles. In Jefferson Parish, focus groups were conducted on four separate occasions involving 1 group for parents and 1 group for juveniles each time. The Department was asked to conduct a random sample of 24 parent-juvenile pairs for each of the four dates and send invitations to each family. The invitation contained a description of the focus group activity and its purpose, and it offered an incentive (in this instance, a $25 Target gift card), one each for the parent and the juvenile who elected to participate. The focus group discussions should be guided by a set of questions for the parents (see Appendix F for sample questions) and a set of questions for the juveniles (see Appendix G for sample questions).

Best Practice Analysis

The best practice analysis of a probation department’s programs and practices involves an analysis of its decision making processes, a review of its data, and an examination of its case handling in some specific arenas, all in regard to its own internal programs. A review of the screening and assessment process should also be a part of best practice analysis. This should include recommendations for tools that would be most appropriate in the participating jurisdiction.

The review of a department’s data can identify the need for more data development in order to be able to measure the effectiveness of its practices in identified program areas. A special focus on key target populations can underscore needs for more data development as the review team works to examine how a particular population could be better served.

An examination of the criteria and methodology for other programs that are review priorities can also be undertaken to determine how they measure against what is known about best practices in a particular program arena. Finally, another area for best practice analysis includes an examination of the

activities. The team should also plan specific review activities, analyze data on probation services and programs, hear and discuss findings from the probation review, and discuss ideas for improvements based on those findings.

Group Interviews

Probation Officers

If the review is conducted by outside consultants, an important additional method to gain information from the probation officers, and to gain the trust that their participation in the review is a meaningful activity, is to extend an open invitation to all probation officers in the Department to meet with the consultants without any of the probation supervisors or managers present. The purpose of the meeting is to share results of the employee survey and to elicit more information, building on the survey responses. It should be an open meeting to encourage the probation officers to add whatever information they believe is pertinent to the probation review. They can offer their critique of the whole probation operation along with specific ideas for potential improvements.

Outside Agencies

Whether the probation review is conducted using outside consultants or individuals within the department charged with organizing and carrying out all the review activities, it is important to meet with outside agencies to determine what their experience has been working with the probation department on individual cases. Invitations should be sent to entities such as law enforcement, children’s services, state office for juvenile justice, district attorney, juvenile court administration, mental health and substance abuse providers, and community-based service providers. The review team should work with a set of questions focused on interactions or transactions with the department and interagency work processes (see Appendix E for a list of sample questions).

11

of the policies and procedures. This is followed by descriptions of a department’s operations and covers training, management practices, and actual probation practices. Probation practices include probation supervision, service delivery to probationers and the various views held about probation practices.

Issues

Some of the key issues in this review element may be:

• whether the probation manual is an effective guide to daily practice;

• how management practices contribute to the overall functioning of a department;

• how the design and delivery of training support effective probation practices;

• whether the probation supervision is effectively carried out and whether services to probationers are effectively delivered

Data Sources and Resources

To determine whether the probation manual is an effective guide to daily practice, the review team needs to analyze it step by step and elicit feedback from its users. The manual should serve as the foundation document to guide the probation officers’ work. It should detail the basic functions of the probation officers and direct them to carry out their roles and responsibilities for probation supervision and treatment. In addition to the manual itself, sources of data to carry out the review include employee survey responses about the manual, key stakeholders’ views of probation officers’ daily functioning, and the views of supervisors and probation managers about the manual’s utility. Authoritative resources should guide the manual review, including the statutory framework under which probation practices should function as these should be incorporated in the manual. Additionally, national guidelines from resources such as the American Probation and Parole Association and BARJ (Balance and Restorative Justice) principles can assist in this activity.

decision making processes between the probation department and other agencies to develop and incorporate best practices. In Jefferson Parish, this took the form of examining the decision-making processes between the Department and the Office of Juvenile Justice as the two entities worked together to make placement decisions.

Performance Measures and Outcomes Development

The examination of performance measures and outcomes is a critical piece of a probation review. To determine how performance of probation officers is measured, the review team should first meet to identify what indictors are used to measure probation officer performance of case processes. Next an exercise can be conducted with a group of probation officers and supervisors to determine:

• what are the desired outcomes for probationers,

• what factors affect the achievement of those outcomes, and

• what is used to measure the achievement of outcomes.

After these exercises are completed, a subsequent meeting can be held with the review team to conduct an exercise to identify how the performance indicators relate to the achievement of client outcomes.

The Probation Review Elements

Element A: Program Planning and Implementation

The review of program planning and implementation focuses on a probation department’s policies, procedures, and operations, as well as how probation practice is carried out as reflected in the feedback from probation officers, stakeholders, and consumers. This review element begins with a careful analysis


knowledge and skills for providing more effective community-based probation and parole services. While the majority of emphasis has historically leaned toward adult corrections, the APPA has a myriad of grant-funded projects that produce numerous training programs on a variety of topics of relevance to the community supervision field. These trainings are delivered in traditional classroom settings or via various distance learning technologies.4

• EPICS, out of the Center for Criminal Justice Research, School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati is a training curriculum for Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS). Based on research showing that supervision is based more on court mandates than assessments, this training is built on principles of effective supervision. The three main principles are risk, need, and responsivity. Differential supervision is applied using these principles, probation officers follow a structured approach in their interaction with offenders, and a cognitive-behavioral model is employed. (Latessa, 2010; Smith & Latessa, 2011).

• National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges whose publication, Delinquency Prevention Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Juvenile Delinquency Cases, is a guide for juvenile delinquency court judges and juvenile delinquency system professionals. Specifically, in Chapter XI: Probation and Parole Violations (pp. 193–198), valuable guidance and instruction are provided for probation and court staff, designed to enhance practice and outcomes (NCJFCJ).

Whether the probation supervision is effectively carried out and whether services to probationers are effectively delivered can be based on feedback gained from a variety of sources. These sources include the employee survey, stakeholder

In the review of how management practices contribute to the overall functioning of a department, the examination of management practice should be based on the foundation (or best practice standard) that a department has in place 1) a carefully articulated mission and vision, 2) a clear set of strategies to achieve the mission and vision, and 3) corresponding policies and procedures that clearly direct and evaluate the staff in its performance. Both the managers and the probation officers are significant sources of information in the review of management practices. The management can be guided through self assessment and executive coaching to identify the strengths and weaknesses of its management practices. The employee survey responses are also a good source of data to evaluate the management practices as well as group interviews with probation officers and supervisors. Authoritative resources from literature reviews on management practice can also serve to illustrate effective management practices.

Sources for the review of the design and delivery of training to support probation practices should include a complete review of the training curriculum, both pre-service and in-service and all corresponding training materials. The training curriculum should encompass the material contained in the probation manual. It should help the probation officer to understand his/her role and the tools that need to be employed to effectively carry out that role. The probation officers themselves are the best source to identify what are the training strengths and weaknesses and this can be accomplished through a review of the employee survey responses and in conversation with the probation officers. Authoritative sources for training of probation officers include:

• American Probation and Parole Association’s (APPA) whose mission is the development and delivery of training programs to enhance its constituents’

4. APPA sponsored training events can be accessed at: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?WebCode=IA_Intro-duction (click Training tab)

13

system and the determination of a department’s capacity for program and practice development.

Issues


• whether decision making processes are clearly articulated, understood, and accompanied with corresponding tools

• how the methodology and performance for particular programs is supported by data and best practices

• how well a department understands and employs best practices and evidence-based practices

• whether benchmark goals and outcomes exist for a department’s programs and practices


To determine whether decision making processes are clearly articulated, understood, and accompanied with corresponding tools, the review team should:

• undertake a file review of sample cases,

• analyze the department’s use of assessment and other decision making tools, and

• consider the responses from the employee survey.

It should also consider how the organization is structured to make key decisions about probationers, that is, whether all of its probation officers should conduct assessments and make corresponding recommendations regarding individual probationers or whether this function should be performed in a separate assessment unit. Authoritative resources for this review area might be the ABA Joint Commission on Juvenile Justice Standards as well as a department’s own reports of the effectiveness of its decision making and assessment practices.

How the methodology and performance for particular programs is supported by data and best practices can best be reviewed

meetings and interviews, and focus groups with parents and probationers. This reflects a major effort contemplated by the review work plan, that is, to obtain staff and consumer feedback. Review in this arena can include an examination of the probation officer’s role; assignment of cases and levels of supervision; and working conditions. The review of the actual delivery of services to probationers should include the capacity to deliver services; assessment and referral to services; resources and unmet needs of juveniles; and juveniles reporting of their probation experiences. Authoritative sources should include a department’s own reports of its metrics for the delivery of services, covering not just the probation processes (completion of reports, number of contacts with probationers, etc.), but also its progress with the provision of treatment resources and achievement of intermediate outcomes.

Potential Findings and Recommendations

The findings and recommendations will be unique to each jurisdiction that undertakes a probation review but it is critical that the findings and recommendations support each other. In the program planning and implementation review element, a jurisdiction will likely find the greatest volume of findings and recommendations because the areas of examination are the foundation upon which probation practices stand. It is possible that a jurisdiction will find that, absent a recent update, it needs a significant overhaul of its manual, or that its probation officer roles and responsibilities are not as clear as they need to be, or that its training curriculum is in need of updates and revisions. The recommendations that flow from these findings should be specific and provide clear direction as to the next steps a department might take to improve its practices.

Element B: Best Practices and Benchmarking

The review of best practices and benchmarking involves an analysis of all programs and practices against a best practices standard. This should include the decision making processes and the handling of particular groups of probationers in specific programs. It also involves the development of a benchmark


and outcomes for its program providers to help assure its commitment to best practices.


Once again, the findings and recommendations will be unique to each jurisdiction, but in this arena of best practices and benchmarking there often will be improvements to be made because probation officers and managers are still challenging themselves to increase their use of evidence-based practice and establish solid benchmarks for the overall improvement of probation practices. Among the potential arenas for examination and improvement, it may be that a department needs to:

• examine its tools for decision making (e.g. assessment instruments, court reports, etc.),

• examine its criteria or methodology for the placement of youths in particular programs,

• undertake significant data development efforts so that it has the data to inform itself of its effectiveness, or

• construct a new or improved benchmarking system.

Element C: Performance Measurement and Client Outcomes

The achievement of successful outcomes for probationers should be the main business of any probation department and the gravitational point around which all of the probation officers’ activities center.“ The achievement of successful outcomes depends on, first, a careful identification of what outcomes are sought, second, an examination and address of the factors that affect achievement, and third, the development of a measurement system to document achievement. The importance of the third item, or performance measurement, cannot be overstated because often what gets measured is what people value and where they focus their efforts.” (CWLA, Los Angeles County Probation Program Audit report, p. 46)

by examining a department’s own data sources and the literature on evidence-based practice. Data development and getting a data collection system in place is a challenge for most probation departments. This is a critical review component to enable and assure that data drives effective probation practice. The questions the review team must ask include 1) whether it has data about the characteristics of youths placed in particular programs and 2) whether it has data about the outcomes achieved by youths in each of the programs sufficient to be able to assess the effectiveness of its programs. If the answer to these questions is “no,” then the review team needs to spend some time discussing what data development needs to take place and develop corresponding recommendations.

Determining how well a department understands and employs best practices and evidence-based practices can be accomplished by examining the responses to the employee survey and in group interviews with probation officers. It can also be determined with file reviews to assess how well assessments are tied to treatment and supervision recommendations. Another method of determination is through key stakeholder interviews to help identify what individuals outside of the department believe are the department’s most promising programs and practices.

There are several indices to consider whether benchmark goals and outcomes exist for a department’s programs and practices. The first consideration is whether a department has the data to inform itself about the programs and practices that are promising and effective. Next, the review team should consider whether the probation department has identified what performances of its probation staff and the department as a whole it wants to measure. The review team should consider whether, if the department has stated benchmarks, it has laid the foundation for effective measurement by establishing baselines and goals, and developed its internal and public reporting systems. Finally, another index of a department’s commitment to benchmarking lies in its establishment of a performance-based contracting system for its contracted services. The department should have identified outputs

15

each supervisor using tools that reflect those standards.“ Performance measures tell us where the organization is relative to its goals, how well the organization is doing, and point to things that can improve the organization’s effectiveness. Ultimately, we measure to improve the performance.” (Thomas, NCJJ, 2006, pp. 2–3)

Whether a department has a clearly articulated set of outcomes can be determined through the employee survey responses and in group interviews with supervisors and probation officers. A department may have in place several documents that identify desired outcomes for probationers in the individual service plans, probation conditions, and recommendations to the court. The key is to determine whether the probation officers themselves can articulate the outcomes they seek for probationers and then make sure that the documents or tools they use to direct their performance are integrated in terms of the articulated outcomes.

The probation review can utilize an exercise with the department managers and supervisors to determine how worker performance and its measurement are related to desired outcomes. The steps of that exercise are detailed as follows:

1) list the desired outcomes and all of the factors that affect achievement of those outcomes,

2) develop a list of probation officer actions that could relate to the achievement of those outcomes,

3) review the list of desired outcomes against the tools they use (e.g. individual service plans, probation conditions) to identify outcomes for individual probationers, and, finally,

4) review the department’s performance reports and measures to determine how they relate to desired outcomes.


In the performance measurement and client outcome review element, it is not uncommon to discover that there is ambiguity in the statements of desired outcomes and the measurement

Issues


• whether a department is focused on the achievement of intermediate outcomes in addition to recidivism

• how a department measures worker performance

• whether a department has developed a clearly articulated set of client outcomes

• how worker performance and its measurement are related to desired outcomes


To determine whether a department is focused on the achievement of intermediate outcomes in addition to recidivism, the key sources of information will be its own internal performance reports, responses from the employee survey, and interviews with key stakeholders. While recidivism cannot be ignored since it relates to the public’s expectation regarding the role of the system and public safety, there are a number of other factors that influence whether the juvenile commits additional offenses. In fact, intermediate outcomes (e.g. enrollment in school, paying restitution, entering into treatment) may be more directly related to the performance of the juvenile justice system (Thomas, NCJJ, 2006, p. 3 citing to Petersilia, 1993 and Dilulio, 1991).

Determining how a department measures worker performance can be accomplished by looking at the reporting measures it uses for overall departmental performance and by looking at the performance review instrument for probation officers. Often the performance indicators will focus primarily on the measurement of case processes (e.g. number of monthly contacts, timely completion of reports, other timely completion of forms, etc.). A related issue is consistency in the measurement of performance. This refers to whether the standards that constitute good performance are clear throughout a department and whether the performance measures are consistently applied by


• Whether ongoing forums exist to resolve issues between a department and other agencies


To determine how the case flow process functions within a department and whether key information is available at critical decision making points, it is useful to identify a select group of experienced probation officers to analyze the intra-agency case flow process. This can be accomplished using a mapping exercise modeled on the Cross Functional Process Map from Robert Damelio’s book, The Basics of Process Mapping. Process mapping allows members of an organization to 1) analyze interfaces, handoffs, bottlenecks, and other case flow process issues; 2) identify information available at each point; 3) compliment on what works well; 4) identify any areas needing improvement; and 5) identify what performance measures should follow from the desired work processes (Damelio, 1996). The mapping useful to this review process consists of identifying probation officers’ actions in performance of each of three functions (investigation, disposition, and supervision), the decisions to be made, and the resulting products. The probation officers can be divided into small groups of 3–5 for this exercise, with each group developing a map and a list of issues for consideration. This method maximizes opportunities to learn about the multiple perspectives of probation officers.

To determine whether the relationship with the Court is clear and functioning well in terms of roles and responsibilities, the best sources of data are the responses to the employee survey, group interviews with probation officers, and interviews with the judges who were a part of the key stakeholder group. Since this relationship is so important to the overall functioning of a department, a probation review is an excellent opportunity to reexamine the roles and responsibilities of the probation officers in relation to the court, the flow of paper and information between a department and the court, the comportment of both probation officers and judges in relation

of the probation officers in relation to the outcomes. Many probation departments are focused on process outcomes as opposed to client outcomes and their performance measurement systems are similarly focused. While it can be argued that it is desirable to have client outcomes drive performance, the probation review may reveal that is not the case. A department may find that it needs to revisit the construct of its whole performance measurement system. Further, the department may find that it needs to strengthen its articulation of desired client outcomes, focusing also on those intermediate outcomes whose achievement bears an important relationship to reduced recidivism.

Element D: Intra- and Interagency Work Processes

Work processes are major sets of interconnected activities through which decisions are made and services are delivered. In order to be effective, these processes must be well conceived, clearly articulated, and periodically monitored. Most often the work processes depend on the cooperation of many parts of the Department as well as outside organizations. Efforts to review these work processes will involve various professional roles inside a department, other public agencies, the Court, and private provider agencies.

Issues


• How the case flow process functions within a department and whether key information is available at critical decision making points

• Whether the relationship with the Court is clear and functioning well in terms of roles and responsibilities

• How interagency processes function from the perspective of the department and the agencies and how linkages can be strengthened

17

to one another, and the level of satisfaction on the part of the department and the judges regarding the relationship.

How interagency processes function and how linkages with outside agencies, contractors, and community-based organizations can be strengthened should begin with a determination of the current effectiveness of interagency case flow processes. The data sources for this determination include key stakeholder interviews, meeting with outside agencies, employee survey responses, and meeting with supervisors and line staff. A mapping exercise for department staff is a useful tool to generate the data in each of three functional areas; investigation, disposition, and supervision (see Appendix H for sample mapping questions). Another tool that can be used to illustrate the functioning of interagency work processes is a sample list of questions for meeting with outside agencies (see Appendix E). The use of these two tools presents the opportunity for personnel inside and outside of a department to identify how the interagency linkages can be strengthened.

Whether ongoing forums exist to resolve issues between a department and other agencies is a critical question to determine. The character of the relationships between a department and other agencies is ever changing due to changes in law, policy, and practice affecting jointly and individually each of the entities. It is therefore critical that forums be in place to resolve problems and modify practices. A department should have in place open forums for broad communications (announcements, personnel and policy changes, etc.); representative committees that meet regularly to do problem solving, potential problem solving, and joint policy development; and interagency agreements to specify actions that are to take place on a regular basis between agencies (for information sharing, joint protocols, etc.). If these do not already exist, the probation review is a good opportunity to specify the need for their development.


In the intra- and interagency work processes review element, a department may find that there are hidden problems in the relationships within and outside the agency. It may find that the review only serves to highlight those problems that were already known. Whichever is the case, the review presents a fresh opportunity to look at and improve these relationships. A department might find that there are unnecessary steps or paperwork in its interagency work processes that slow the process and frustrate its probation officers in the performance of their functions. Or, it might find things such as the referral process to outside agencies needs strengthening or the feedback from the providers regarding the treatment process is lacking. A department may recommend that its forums for resolution of ongoing issues, both internal and external, need to be strengthened in order to improve its intra- and interagency relationships.

Publication of Findings and RecommendationsPublication of the findings and recommendations of a department, and in what forums, should be in the sole discretion of the department’s management.5 There is likely to be information in the report that the department will want to hold closely in order to accomplish its objectives because it is either embarrassing or identifies individual performances that should be protected. On the other hand, there is likely to be information that, if published, could assist the department to accomplish its recommendations for improvements. An Executive Summary can sometimes provide for a broader dissemination of the findings and recommendations because it can be written in a summary format that protects specific information. Further, it may be that excerpts of the report can

5. Noting the discretion of the department’s management to share the results of the review with the public, in part or in the whole, relates to the situation in which the department itself has initiated the review. If the review was ordered by an outside agency, it will be incumbent upon that agency to decide how it is going to handle the publication of the review’s findings and recommendations.


implementation time consuming. It is important to be realistic in deciding what can be undertaken, during what time period, and with what resources. Contextual factors will need to be taken into account such as budget periods and constraints, political pressures, employee participation and morale, and other department goals that must be managed during the period of implementation. The work plan should be very specific in terms of the recommendations that are to be undertaken, with specific individuals identified for involvement, and deadlines for completion.

As the implementation progresses, it may be important to provide progress reports. The updates should be provided to personnel within a department, to relevant constituents outside the department, and to key stakeholders and consumers who are invested in the department’s success. Upon completion of the implementation plan and all of its recommendations, the department should publish a final implementation report. This should include improved outcomes already evident and a forecast of those improvements and outcomes likely to be realized in the future. Finally, a system of quality assurance should be developed so that the implementation of the recommendations can be tracked and it can be determined if the intended outcomes were achieved.

be shared in particular forums to which they relate without sharing the entire report. Whatever the decisions about the publication, the decisions should be considered carefully by a department’s management to assure that the greatest benefit accrues from the ambitious undertaking of a probation review.

Implementation of Review RecommendationsOnce the review has been completed and the report has been accepted by the probation department’s management, it is time to turn a department’s attention to the implementation of the report’s recommendations. The first step is to gather the department personnel who are critical to the implementation of reform in the department. That group should consider the report in its entirety and identify what arenas and recommendations are priorities for implementation. It is likely that implementation will need to be a staged process, beginning with the areas that are ripe for action and sequencing action for other areas of reform over a prescribed time line.

The development of a work plan is critical. In many cases, if the probation review has taken place over a period of several months, the recommendations may be numerous and their

19

ReferencesAmerican Probation and Parole Association, http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?WebCode=IA_Introduction

(click Training tab)

Child Welfare League of America, Los Angeles County Probation Department Program Audit Report, submitted to Los Angeles County Department of Auditor-Controller, September 2005.

Damelio, Robert, The Basics of Process Mapping, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FLA, 1996.

Dilulio, Jr. J. (1991). No Escape: The Future of American Corrections. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.

Latessa, Edward, Center for Juvenile Justice Research, School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS), ppt presentation from Beyond the Bench Conference, California Administrative Office of the Courts, 2010 retrieved 3/19/11 at www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/BTB20Pre-conBPAIJun2.pdf.

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), Delinquency Prevention Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Juvenile Delinquency Cases, can be retrieved at: http://www.ncjfcj.org/content/view/411/411/

Petersilia, J. (1993). Measuring the Performance of Community Corrections in Performance Measure for the Criminal Justice System. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Smith, Paula, and Latessa, Edward, Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS) Model Overview, a working paper, School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, 2011.

Thomas, Doug, How does the Juvenile Justice System Measure Up? Applying Performance Measures in Five Jurisdictions, National Center for Juvenile Justice, May 2006.

Wiig, Janet K. & Tuell, John A., Jefferson Parish Probation Review Report, Child Welfare League of America, May 2010.


21

Appe

ndix

A

Jeffe

rson P

arish

Prob

ation

Revie

w, W

ork P

lan

Met

hods

N

D

J

F M

A

M

J J

A S

O Pe

rson

s In

volv

ed

Com

men

ts

Elem

ent A

: Pro

gram

Pla

nnin

g an

d Im

plem

enta

tion

A.1

Rev

iew

mis

sion

, vis

ion,

st

rate

gies

, po

licie

s an

d pr

oced

ures

a

. est

ablis

h Je

ffer

son

Paris

h pr

ojec

t X

Ro

y Ju

ncke

r and

ass

ocia

tes

m

anag

emen

t tea

m

b

. rev

iew

pro

batio

n m

anua

l with

X

CW

LA te

am w

ith J

eff T

eam

Jef

fers

on te

am –

iden

tify

stre

ngth

s,

w

eakn

esse

s, a

nd re

com

men

datio

ns

f

or im

prov

emen

ts

c

. rev

iew

CYP

B pl

anni

ng d

ocum

ent

X

CWLA

team

and

iden

tify

inte

rfac

es w

ith p

roba

tion

r

evie

w

A.2

Obt

ain

staf

f and

con

sum

er fe

edba

ck

to d

eter

min

e ho

w th

ese

item

s lin

k to

pr

ogra

m o

pera

tions

a

. ide

ntify

que

stio

ns re

gard

ing

X

CWLA

team

, Gin

a Vi

ncen

t, an

d

Dep

t’s c

apac

ity to

pla

n an

d ca

rry

Jeff

erso

n Te

am

o

ut p

rogr

am o

pera

tions

(inc

orpo

rate

all

revi

ew e

lem

ents

)

b

. con

duct

focu

s gr

oups

of y

outh

X

X X

CW

LA te

am w

ith a

ssis

tanc

e fro

m

J. R

yals

– ra

ndom

sam

ple

and

par

ents

6 g

roup

s (3

pare

nts,

focu

s gr

oup

ques

tions

dev

elop

ed fo

r S.

Cab

al –

writ

e le

tter

s to

par

ents

3 y

outh

); 4

Wes

t Ban

k, 2

East

Ban

k;

DM

C w

ork

an

d yo

uth

2

gro

ups 1

x m

onth

; one

par

ent

C.

Tro

scla

ir –

iden

tify

ince

ntiv

es

g

roup

and

one

you

th g

roup

from

R. J

unck

er –

obt

ain

cour

t ord

er

s

ame

fam

ilies

c

. sur

vey/

inte

rvie

w p

roba

tion

X

CWLA

team

co

mbi

natio

n of

sur

vey

and

grou

p

o

ffic

ers

and

supe

rvis

ors

in

terv

iew

/foc

us g

roup

; use

in

divi

dual

resp

onse

s to

dev

elop

gr

oup

inte

rvie

w/f

ocus

gro

up Q

s

d.

ass

ess

the

acce

ss to

and

qua

lity

of

X

CWLA

team

and

Jef

fers

on T

eam

S.

Cab

al –

pro

duce

reco

rd o

f

train

ing

prov

ided

to s

taff

tra

inin

g fo

r las

t yea

r


Met

hods

N

D

J

F M

A

M

J J

A S

O Pe

rson

s In

volv

ed

Com

men

ts

Ele

men

t B: B

est P

ract

ices

and

Ben

chm

arki

ng

B.1

Con

duct

‘Bes

t Pra

ctic

e’ A

naly

sis

of

Prog

ram

s an

d Pr

actic

es

a

. eva

luat

e de

cisi

on m

akin

g pr

oces

ses

X

X X

CW

LA te

am, G

ina

Vinc

ent,

and

focu

s on

how

the

use

of th

e SA

VRY

•

dis

tingu

ish

wor

k ac

com

plis

hed

by G

.

Je

ffer

son

Team

an

d ne

w a

sses

smen

t pro

cess

will

V

ince

nt a

s co

mpl

eted

impr

ove

prac

tice;

S. C

abal

– p

rodu

ce

•

how

dec

isio

ns a

re m

ade

to u

se th

e

data

on

assi

gnm

ent t

o 6

prog

ram

s

6 D

JS p

rogr

ams

b

. foc

used

revi

ew o

f crit

eria

and

X

X

CW

LA te

am a

nd S

haun

a Ep

ps

for R

& C

S –

hour

s sta

ndar

d, a

mou

nt

m

etho

dolo

gy fo

r res

titut

ion

and

of d

amag

es v

s. or

dere

d am

ount

, cap

com

mun

ity s

ervi

ces

and

elec

troni

c

pu

t on

amou

nt c

olle

cted

?, co

mm

unity

mon

itorin

g

st

anda

rds.

For

EM

P w

hich

has

no

fo

rmal

crit

eria

, suc

cess

crit

eria

,

ch

arac

teris

tics

of y

outh

who

are

su

cces

sful

, loo

k at n

atio

nal d

ata,

and

es

tabl

ish

crite

ria fo

r ref

erra

l

c

. rev

iew

the

hand

ling

and

cons

ider

X X

X X

X X

X X

X

CW

LA te

am, K

atay

oon

Maj

d, a

nd

yout

h w

ith m

enta

l hea

lth is

sues

that

sep

arat

ion

of fo

rmal

FIN

S fro

m

Jeff

erso

n Te

am

are

in F

INS

to g

ain

acce

ss to

ser

vice

s

del

inqu

ency

cas

es m

ultip

le d

ata

requ

ests

of D

JS

B.2

Dev

elop

Ben

chm

arki

ng S

yste

m

CWLA

Tea

m

a

. exa

min

e su

cces

s ra

te d

ata

of y

outh

X X

X

by

DJS

prog

ram

ass

ignm

ent

b

. ide

ntify

ben

chm

ark

goal

s an

d

X

X

out

com

es fo

r DJS

pro

gram

s

c

. tie

to p

erfo

rman

ce b

ased

con

tract

ing

X

B.3

Wor

k w

ith O

JJ a

nd D

epar

tmen

t on

N

ed L

ough

ran,

Gin

a Vi

ncen

t, DJ

S,

Plac

emen

t Dec

isio

n M

akin

g

an

d OJ

J

B.4

Det

erm

ine

Depa

rtm

ent’s

Cap

acity

X

CW

LA T

eam

fo

r Pro

gram

and

Pra

ctic

e De

velo

pmen

t

23

Met

hods

N

D

J

F M

A

M

J J

A S

O Pe

rson

s In

volv

ed

Com

men

ts

Elem

ent C

: Per

form

ance

Mea

sure

men

t and

Clie

nt O

utco

mes

C.1

Iden

tify

Perf

orm

ance

Mea

sure

s

w

ork

proc

esse

s su

ch a

s tim

elin

ess

Focu

sed

Wor

ker P

erfo

rman

ce a

nd C

ase

(e.g

. ISP

with

in 3

0 da

ys),

follo

w

Proc

esse

s

thro

ugh

and

achi

evem

ent o

f

ou

tcom

es s

ough

t in

ISP

a

. ide

ntify

cur

rent

per

form

ance

X

X

CW

LA T

eam

indi

cato

rs

•

revi

ew d

ocum

ents

(for

ms,

repo

rts,

s

tudi

es)

•

inte

rvie

w p

erso

nnel

b

. fur

ther

dev

elop

per

form

ance

X X

X

CW

LA T

eam

and

Jef

fers

on T

eam

mea

sure

s an

d a

syst

em fo

r tra

ckin

g

C.2

Deve

lop

Clie

nt O

utco

mes

and

Seek

invo

lvem

ent o

f Pau

l Fric

k in

M

easu

rem

ent

ou

tcom

e de

velo

pmen

t

a

. rev

iew

lite

ratu

re o

n cl

ient

out

com

es

X

CWLA

Tea

m

fo

r juv

enile

pro

batio

ners

b

. rev

iew

sta

ndar

d co

nditi

ons

of

p

roba

tion,

spe

cial

ized

cond

ition

s, a

nd

o

ther

art

icul

ated

out

com

es (e

.g. i

n IS

P)

X

CWLA

Tea

m

c

. con

duct

ses

sion

with

DJS

to id

entif

y

X

CW

LA T

eam

us

e a

sche

me

of th

ree

broa

d

d

esire

d cl

ient

out

com

es

ca

tego

ries

1. y

outh

crim

e fre

e fo

r a

perio

d of

tim

e; 2

. you

th a

chie

ve s

ome

sort

of e

duca

tiona

l goa

ls; a

nd 3

.

yo

uth

are

prep

ared

to e

nter

the

wor

k

fo

rce.

Dis

tingu

ish

inte

rmed

iate

and

in

crem

enta

l out

com

es th

at le

ad to

th

ese

thre

e

d

. dev

elop

a li

stin

g of

des

ired

X X

X

CWLA

Tea

m a

nd J

effe

rson

Tea

m

o

utco

mes

, bas

elin

e da

ta o

n ea

ch, a

nd

id

entif

y da

ta s

ourc

es fo

r tra

ckin

g


Met

hods

N

D

J

F M

A

M

J J

A S

O Pe

rson

s In

volv

ed

Com

men

ts

Elem

ent D

: Int

ra- a

nd In

tera

genc

y W

ork

Proc

esse

s

D.1

Ana

lyze

Pro

batio

n Ca

se F

low

Pr

oces

ses

a

. con

duct

a p

roce

ss m

appi

ng e

xerc

ise

X

Step

hen

Phill

ippi

and

CW

LA T

eam

Co

ordi

nate

with

Info

rmat

ion

with

a s

elec

ted

grou

p of

pro

batio

n

Sh

arin

g pr

ojec

t

offi

cers

to a

naly

ze in

terfa

ces,

hand

offs

,

bot

tlene

cks

and

othe

r cas

e flo

w

p

roce

ss is

sues

b

. inc

lude

dis

cuss

ion

of in

form

atio

n

X

CW

LA T

eam

and

Sup

ervi

sors

ava

ilabl

e at

var

ious

dec

isio

n m

akin

g

p

oint

s

D.2

Fac

ilita

te Im

prov

ed In

ter-a

genc

y

revi

ew w

hat h

as a

lread

y be

en

coor

dina

tion

of C

ase

Flow

Pro

cess

es

ac

com

plis

hed

in th

is a

rena

by

John

Ry

als,

Gin

a Vi

ncen

t, an

d Pa

ul F

rick

a

. map

inte

rage

ncy

wor

k pr

oces

ses

X

CWLA

Tea

m, s

uper

viso

ry, a

nd li

ne

w

ith a

gro

up o

f sup

ervi

sory

and

st

aff

p

roba

tion

line

staf

f

b

. con

duct

mee

ting

with

DJS

and

X

CW

LA te

am a

nd e

xter

nal a

genc

ies

Coor

dina

te w

ith D

awn

Pale

rmo’

s

ext

erna

l age

ncie

s to

pre

sent

map

ping

Inte

rage

ncy

Oper

atio

ns C

omm

ittee

find

ings

, sol

icit

addi

tiona

l inp

ut, a

nd

d

iscu

ss w

ays

to s

treng

then

link

ages

,

bet

ter s

hare

reso

urce

s, a

nd im

prov

e

c

ase

flow

25

1. Review key elements of the Probation Review

2. How well do you think the Department of Juvenile Services provides needed services to juveniles through Department staff, contractors, and through linkages with other youth serving systems?

3. What are some of the unmet needs of juveniles that you think might be better served?

4. What do you think are the Department’s programmatic strengths? Most promising practices?

5. Are there any program areas that you think require more attention and evaluation?

6. What do you think are the most important issues for the Department to address in terms of its mission and operation?

7. What do the juveniles find most troublesome about their probation experience?

8. What do the juveniles find most helpful about their probation experience?

9. Do you have any particular ideas for solutions to identified concerns or problems the Department faces?

10. How effective is the Department in its interaction with other agencies, including your agency or office?

11. Are there any other areas of concerns or issues that we have not touched on that you think should be addressed?

Appendix B Interview Questions for Key Stakeholders


27

Appendix C/D Employee Survey


29


31


33


35

Appendix E Jefferson Parish Interagency Work Processes Meeting with Outside Agencies

1. What works particularly well in your interactions/transactions with the Department of Juvenile Services (DJS)?

2. How well does DJS assess the needs of juveniles and match them to services?

3. How well does DJS attend to details in making referrals to other agencies?

4. How well does DJS perform to help assure that juveniles actually access services?

5. How well do you and DJS share/exchange case information?

6. What interagency work processes do you think need improvement beyond the discussion we have had to this point?

7. Are there any other issues that need to be discussed as we consider interagency work processes and DJS?


37

Appendix F Parent Focus Group Questions

1. How well do you think the probation department provides needed services to juveniles?

2. Are there programs or services that you think would better serve your child?

3. What kind of changes in your child do you wish the probation department could help your child make?

4. Are there policies or procedures of the Department that need improvement?

5. How well does the probation officer work with you and your child? What recommendations do you have for improvement?

6. What are you finding the most helpful about your child’s probation experience?

7. What are you finding the least helpful about your child’s probation experience?


39

Appendix G Juvenile Focus Group Questions

1. What has been most helpful to you about your probation experience? Why?

2. What has been least helpful to you about your probation experience? Why?

3. What kind of changes in your life do you wish the probation department could help you make?

4. How well do you think the probation officer works with you? Describe things the probation officer does…

5. What recommendations do you have for improving the way the probation officer works with you?

6. Are there any rules or ways that things work in probation that you think should be changed?

7. Is there something that would help you get off probation and stay out of trouble that isn’t available to you?


41

Disposition

1. What are the steps/actions involve other agencies?

2. Who are the agencies?

3. What information gets shared?

4. What decisions are made between the DJS and other agencies? How does this get done?

5. What products result from these interactions?

6. Are there roadblocks, inefficiencies, conflicts with these agencies?

7. What ideas do you have for improvement?

8. Are there any other issues?

Appendix H Jefferson Parish Process Mapping for Interagency Work Processes

Investigation









Supervision










For more information, contact:

Janet K. Wiig, JD, MSW Co-Director MacArthur Foundation Models for Change: Systems Reform in Juvenile Justice Initiative Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps 11 Beacon Street, Suite 820 Boston, MA 02108 480–837–1685 [email protected]

John A. Tuell, MA Co-Director MacArthur Foundation Models for Change: Systems Reform in Juvenile Justice Initiative Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps 11 Beacon Street, Suite 820 Boston, MA 02108 703–753–0059 [email protected]


An initiative supported by the John D.

and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

www.macfound.org

www.modelsforchange.net

Date post:	07-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Probation Review Guidebook - RFK Children’s Action Corps · A probation review is an exciting...

Documents